Imagine being told that your job, which you’ve managed successfully from home due to a disability, is now at risk because of a new policy that makes it harder to work remotely. This is the reality for many employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), who are now navigating a bureaucratic maze that could jeopardize their health and livelihoods. But here’s where it gets even more complicated: the CDC is reportedly asking employees to bypass the standard process for reasonable accommodations, raising questions about fairness, legality, and the well-being of its workforce.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has introduced stricter rules for telework, requiring all requests to be reviewed and approved by high-ranking officials. This change is expected to slow down an already backlogged system, leaving employees in limbo. According to Federal News Network, the new policy limits the use of telework as an interim solution while reasonable accommodation requests are processed. However, with over 3,000 pending cases, the CDC is resorting to unconventional measures. And this is the part most people miss: employees are being instructed to send their medical documentation directly to Lynda Chapman, the agency’s chief operating officer, for up to 30 days of temporary telework approval.
One CDC employee described the process: ‘You email her a letter from your doctor, and she decides if you can telework.’ Another employee shared evidence that Chapman was recently added as an authorized reviewer of their accommodation materials, sparking concerns about her qualifications. ‘She shouldn’t be evaluating health needs,’ the employee said. ‘That’s a job for an RA specialist.’ Reports suggest Chapman is only approving telework in limited cases, such as post-surgery recovery, pregnancy, or chemotherapy.
During recent ‘office hours’ sessions, supervisors were briefed on the new process, but many left with more questions than answers. One employee revealed that Chapman denied their request when they questioned her role. Linnet Griffiths, a former CDC advisor, called the situation ‘extremely disturbing,’ noting that the agency once had a robust system for handling accommodations but has since dismantled its specialized staff. ‘They got rid of all the RA staff and EEO offices,’ Griffiths said, ‘leaving the department understaffed and overwhelmed.’
Griffiths emphasized that the CDC previously relied on in-house medical experts to evaluate accommodation requests, ensuring compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. ‘Having the COO or someone without medical expertise make these decisions was never an option,’ she added.
But here’s where it gets controversial: under the new policy, supervisors cannot approve interim telework, even when it’s deemed the only effective accommodation. Expiring telework agreements won’t be renewed, forcing employees to return to the office or use leave. While leadership claims these aren’t denials, supervisors argue it feels that way in practice. Legal risks loom large, with some supervisors being advised to consider liability insurance. Meanwhile, concerns that the policy violates federal disability law have been dismissed, with leadership urging supervisors to avoid legal discussions during meetings.
Several Senate Democrats, led by Sens. Tim Kaine and Raphael Warnock, have criticized the policy, warning it will disproportionately harm workers with disabilities, including those with chronic illnesses and compromised immune systems. They highlighted alarming cases, such as an employee with a high-risk pregnancy whose telework was rescinded, only to be rushed to the emergency room on her first day back in the office. Another disabled veteran with PTSD, triggered by a shooting at CDC headquarters, had their telework accommodation denied repeatedly, leaving them without support.
HHS has pledged to respond to these concerns, but the damage may already be done. Is this policy a necessary bureaucratic adjustment, or a dangerous step backward for disability rights? We want to hear your thoughts. Share your opinions in the comments below—let’s keep this conversation going.
